Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2010 - 01:39pm PT
|
I never said warming helped native plants you idiot.
We'll just have to accept a "new native."
Kind of like what happened when the Euros took over America.
Not saying that's a good thing, but it seems to have worked out pretty well for 99% of the people who post on this site, don't ya think?
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2010 - 01:39pm PT
|
You're arguing with an idiot, Dr. F.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2010 - 02:44pm PT
|
dirtbag, if you don't think considering the possible benefits of global warming are worth considering, you're an idiot.
Actually you're an idiot either way, so I suppose your views don't matter much.
For every non-idiot out there (that's NOT you, dirtbag):
Riddle me this:
What states in the US have had the lowest increases in population over the past 50 yeas?
What states have had the greatest increases in population?
What are some obvious characteristics of the population losers and population gainers?
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2010 - 06:08pm PT
|
Dirtbag may be so stupid he thinks crops grow better in cold temperatures
rather than warm.
6.5 billion mouths to feed need a lot of calories and
colder tempertures just won't do. Greenhouse veg's, aquaculture pond
fish, and high plains wheat will help keep us from starving unless the
nut-case Warmists have their way.
Maybe the Warmists should be taught a lesson and denied the right to buy
burned carbon produced electricity, food, and fuel so they get their thinking right.
Let them buy 'green'!
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2010 - 08:44pm PT
|
Got a chuckle out of that one Harduni. Pick a plant (corn) that produces the result you are looking for.
I saw the sensitivity of another plant to CO2 levels dramatically demonstrated by a High School freshman about 45 years ago.
There were a select few of us placed in an honors freshman general science class. We did the normal curriculum in the first six weeks and then worked the rest of the year on our own projects. I built a wind tunnel and tested the then new Rodalgo wing (precursor of the hang glider). One guy built a 7' long 3" diameter rocket that would now land him in Federal detention. Most of the girls grew weird green things in pitri dishes and the guy who's dad owned the welding supply store decided to turn a storage room into Mars and grow pole beans.
He had the nitrogen and CO2 tanks set up into the sealed off room and a dim grow light to reproduce the lower solar flux at Mars orbit.
He planted his crop shortly before Christmas break and was having trouble with his CO2 flowmeter.
On return from the Christmas break the CO2 tank had run dry. He striped the duct tape from around the door expecting to find not much of anything. We got geared up and ready to chide him over dead plants.
Opening the door it looked like a scene from "A Little Shop of Horrors".
Pale yellow bean plants filling the room and spilling out on top of him as it was opened.
The rest of us at first astonished, then laughing hysterically.
|
|
GOclimb
Trad climber
Boston, MA
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2010 - 01:00pm PT
|
The "you egghead scientist don't know anything about the real world, and furthermore you should get out of your ivory towers and do something productive, like clean up the environment" BS in this thread really bums me out.
There has always been a notable thread of anti-intellectualism in the American subconscious, but at least in bible-thumping rural America, it stems from an ignorance and suspicion that is completely understandable. The California version, though, has always seemed so willful. Too much Hollywood, maybe, making the simple but fake seem so much more appealing than the complex but real?
Ah well, carry on.
GO
|
|
GOclimb
Trad climber
Boston, MA
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2010 - 04:59pm PT
|
Dr F wrote: thats 300,000 deaths per year due to man made global climate change
I don't mean to minimize that, or sound callous, but I think that kind of misses the point.
For example, malaria kills three times that many people per year. The causes of malaria are well understood, and the cost of both prevention and cure is relatively low. At least in comparison to the kind of massive changes required to slow/reverse global climate change.
But by merely focusing on the way things are now, we're missing the boat. Global climate change, while difficult and expensive to combat, is, in the longer term, a *far* greater threat.
The potential for a major disruption to our way of life due to climate change is very real. But we have the chance to anticipate, and to change the course of events. This is only possible because we have the great fortune of having scientists working hard to describe, quantify, and model the world around us.
Why not use that foresight to attempt to choose a change we can live with, that will be far less disruptive in the long term, as opposed to doing nothing and allowing our children and grandchildren to just have to deal with a huge problem that they will have no choice but to suffer through?
GO
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2010 - 06:23pm PT
|
"Climategate": the scandal that never was.
But not only did British investigators clear the East Anglia scientist at the center of it all, Phil Jones, of scientific impropriety and dishonesty in April, an investigation at Penn State cleared PSU climatologist Michael Mann of “falsifying or suppressing data, intending to delete or conceal e-mails and information, and misusing privileged or confidential information” in February. In perhaps the biggest backpedaling, The Sunday Times of London, which led the media pack in charging that IPCC reports were full of egregious (and probably intentional) errors, retracted its central claim—namely, that the IPCC statement that up to 40 percent of the Amazonian rainforest could be vulnerable to climate change was “unsubstantiated.” The Times also admitted that it had totally twisted the remarks of one forest expert to make it sound as if he agreed that the IPCC had screwed up, when he said no such thing.
http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/06/25/newspapers-retract-climategate-claims-but-damage-still-done.html
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2010 - 10:42pm PT
|
Bump! A major retraction from "The Sunday Times of London" on the supposed Climategate scandal article and no response from our science-hating friends here?
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2010 - 06:50pm PT
|
this thread is too long to read and i will pick up new allies and lose old ones with this, but have looked at both sides and i tend to side against those who are blowing warning sirens. al gore's movie is a crock. you'll find credible scientists on both sides of this, but neither side gets down to the nitty gritty.
there's lots of climatological data which has been gathered which will show you warming and cooling history going back thousands and thousands of years, in detail down to decades at a time. ice core sampling, glacier growth and recession, even the tree rings up in the white mountains. both sides are probably taking the same data and doctoring it. i don't know what to think, it isn't my major focus, but i know that nature is more resilient than it's being given credit for, and i also know that it's being buggered in ways that are generally kept secret.
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2010 - 10:18pm PT
|
Tony - good post and I agree that we can't believe anything these guys are
saying. 'The sky is falling' joke/myth/scare/hoax goes a long way back
and the people who fell for it were always sorry. Example: Dirtbag.
"I can control the Climate!" "...for a small fee! What makes people
so gullible that they believe the big lies when they immediately detect
the small ones. ie Checks in the mail, I love you, Won't %## in...etc etc.
But how about the crazed sex poodle description of Al Gore our
favorite Carbon Offset Witch Doctor?
Gotta figure most every hotel
he's stayed at in the last 10 years there's a girl who did follow instructions...
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Jun 28, 2010 - 03:22pm PT
|
DR F -The message that they falsified data can't be recalled now that's
its out there.
People take a dim view of "Phil Jones retracts confession of falsifying climate proxy's!" and don't believe he's proved innocent by media groups that are invested heavily in Carbon Offset credits. Its all about the money and its a scam.
Phil Jones, admitted after the exposure of the climategate emails that, yes, we have seen warmer climates in the past 1000 years and there has been no significant warming since 1995, he destroyed the central thesis of the climate change crowd.
Evan Solar scientists have got it very wrong. They predicted by
June 2010 we'd see a near solar maximum of sunspots but its staying at
minimum. Predictive science on how this is affecting Earths climate
is ongoing.
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Jun 28, 2010 - 04:15pm PT
|
easy on doc, fellas, he's a good egg.
al gore threw the election of 2000. he won, he knew he won, but it wasn't in the script for him to win. he rolled over and played dead, just like a well-trained dog. an independent candidate would have demanded a recount, if for nothing else than to reassure the public. this is pretty well documented. all they needed to do was play some dirty tricks in florida. the exact same scenario happened in 2004, substituting kerry for gore, ohio for florida.
these people act from a script. i know about the data--on both sides. i've seen the scraggly glaciers in the alps, but i also know how glaciers come and go, one of the best indicators of the highly variable climatology since the last ice age. they say al gore's "hockey stick" graph is cooked. i'll look into that when you can prove he isn't a damn liar.
to get to the bottom of all this, we have to somehow do away with the grandstanding phonies who try to direct public opinion with emotion and shallow "research". i'm willing to consider that we have grandstanding phonies on both sides, and the effect is basically to get nowhere in public debate. there is no traction, no imperative, and business goes on as usual. now to whose advantage would that be?
i don't trust much of anything in the science news any more. there's a whole lot of cooking going on. if you're interested in any area, you have no choice but to undertake a critical review of all the research yourself. no one can do this for everything that's important. sorry to tell you, doc, but my trust is out the window. you still seem to have a lot left.
i heard al gore's boss bill speak about a month ago. he touched on global warming with a single factoid: "we just had the hottest april on record". that really cuts through all this controversy, doesn't it? he didn't say whether it was a global average or the thermometer in west pooppile, arkansas, and he didn't have to, because the entire class of intelligent graduating university seniors never got their thinking caps sharpened enough to question it. he also spoke glowingly of his lifelong romance with hillary. i wonder if any of the heat from that shows up in one of those graphs.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jun 28, 2010 - 04:55pm PT
|
It's so funny that people will claim global warming is some huge hoax to make money (oh yeah all those scientists who have been studying this for 20+ years stand to make money LOL) but don't see a problem with energy companies that make billions who try to refute it by spending millions.
CO2 is one of the major contributors to the average temp of the planet and we are changing it's level be a significant amount. It doesn't take much sense to realize we can have a big change on the climate.
Should we sacrifice our economy? Of course not, but we can easily reduce emissions a lot without much impact. We shouldn't go overbaord, but we shouldn't do nothing to change our current habits.
And if it's half natural changes so what? Shouldn't we be good stewards of our environment and try to keep things as good as possible for ourselves?
Climate Change Skeptics are the same type of people that throw lit cigg butts out the window saying what does it matter? I don't want my 'rights' taken away.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jun 28, 2010 - 05:21pm PT
|
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Just look at the raw data, don't accept or deny any conclusions. You'll see we are doing a huge experiment on the planet's climate and things are changing already.
Debate all you want about what we should do, but to deny all the fundamental facts just shows you have your head in the sand.
|
|
Caveman
climber
Cumberland Plateau
|
|
|
Jun 28, 2010 - 05:28pm PT
|
Lots of folks in the southeast US pointed to the several snows we had this year as proof that there was no warming but they don't realize that in a cold winter here we don't get snow. It takes a warmer seasonal average to produce snow here. When it is colder it is also drier thus no snow.
|
|
nature
climber
Tucson, AZ
|
|
|
Jun 28, 2010 - 05:37pm PT
|
it's GCC folks... not GW.'
Edit: change GWC to GCC.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jun 28, 2010 - 05:47pm PT
|
The Chief, you can't just look at one location and generalize. You have to look at the entire world. The facts are we have contibuted to a large increase in CO2 (CO2 has a huge impact on temp), and the avearge temp of the Earth is going up. Part of it is probably natural and part is human caused. Should we do nothning and just see what happens? Or should we have regulations that increase energy costs by a few percent and cut way down on emissions?
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jun 28, 2010 - 05:50pm PT
|
Gore made $98 million. Big Oil made $2 trillion.
Let's see, who stands to make money?
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jun 28, 2010 - 06:16pm PT
|
Hey FET, How do you get to The Valley??
You walking or riding a bike there these days? Are you off the Grid at home and at work? Solar and Wind Powered 100% in your home????
It all starts with personal individual behavior. What are doing to be part of the solution FET?
This quote shows they have you thinking exactly how they want. It's not all or nothing. It's VERY easy to reduce your impacts for the first say 25% or more. After maybe 50% it's very difficult and expensive, but we don't need to go that far.
What do I do?
Our big family car is a mini-van instead of the SUVs I see all over the place. CO2 Savings = 40%. We can put 8 people in it and get 25-30 mpg highway. So I can't tow a big trailer or go 4x4ing. Big deal, proably 90% of SUV owners don't do that either. Our small car is a little 4 cylinder that also gets good mileage. I drive that to the valley if I'm not taking the whole family. Our next car will probably be a prius. Edit to add: those prius' going fast are still polluting less than 1/2 what you are Chief.
We open our windows at night and close them in the morning, and only run the A/C once in a while. I turn out lights and everything not being used. Because our energy use is so low it doesn't make sense economicaly to install solar which only pays when your electricity use is in the higher tiers.
We recyle. I put out a 30 gal trash can and mabye 4 bags or recycling, while out neighbors put out a 90 gal trash cans. Cost- a little sorting.
You don't have to make big sacrifices to reduce your pollution by a big chunk. You also save money. I don't let being an environmentalist (environmentalist BTW is someone who wishes to reduce pollution, it doesn't mean a crazy off the grid left winger like they have led you to belive) keep me from doing anything I want to do, but I try to minimize my impact when I do it.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!